briefing paper 2010_01 mappa(1)-2

8/14/2019 Briefing Paper 2010_01 MAPPA(1)-2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/briefing-paper-201001-mappa1-2 1/15

BriefingNo.01/2010

1

www.sccjr.ac.uk

Multi-AgencyProtectionArrangements(MAPPA)

inScotland:Whatdothenumberstellus?

BethWeaver(StrathclydeUniversity)

[email protected]

ThisbriefingpapercollatesforthefirsttimestatisticsaboutMultiAgencyPublicProtection

Arrangements(MAPPA)acrossScotland.ThestatisticspresentedherewereoriginallypublishedinindividualMAPPAannualreports,whicheachreportonadifferentgeographicareaofScotland.The

paperbeginsbyoutliningtheMAPPAarrangementsinScotlandandcomparesinformationabout

offendersmanagedthroughMAPPAinScotlandwiththoseinEnglandandWales.Thepaperthen

focusesonadetailedexaminationofthedataavailableaboutMAPPAinScotland.Thefigures

outlinedinthepaperarepresentedintheappendix,wherealltablesreferredtointhepapercanbe

found.

Introduction:WhatisMAPPA?

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) have been introduced with the

intention of more effectively managing convicted offenders and the risk they pose to

society. InScotland these arrangementswere introduced in law via theManagementofOffenders(Scotland)Act2005.

In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the legislation requires ‘responsible authorities’

(includingthePolice,theScottishPrisonServices,LocalAuthoritiesandHealthBoards1)to

put in place joint arrangements for the assessment and management of risks posed by

certaincategoriesofoffenders2.Additionally,theScottishGovernmentcanspecify‘dutyto

co-operate’ agencies who, as the name suggests, must co-operate with the responsible

authorities inestablishing andimplementing thearrangements; these includebut are not

limitedtoHealthBoards,housingprovidersandrelevantvoluntaryorganisations.

In Scotland, as in EnglandandWales, there are threecategoriesofoffenders and threelevelsofriskmanagement.Thethreecategoriesofoffendersare:

1) registeredsexoffenders(notethisdoesnotincludethosepersonswithaconviction

foraseriousoffence,whoarenotsubjecttonotificationrequirements)3

2) violentoffendersandotherconvictedoffenderswhoaredeemedtoposea riskof

seriousharm.

1InEnglandandWales,theResponsibleAuthoritiesarethePolice,ProbationandthePrisonService(MAPPAGuidance

Version3(2009)2InScotlandthe‘responsibleauthority’inMAPPAisnotthesocialworkdepartment,butthelocalauthorityasawhole.

3

‘RegisteredSexOffenders’referstothoseindividualswhoaresubjecttothenotificationrequirementsofPart2oftheSexual Offences Act 2003 (as defined within Section 10 of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) act

2005).See:http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_1



BriefingNo.01/2010

2

www.sccjr.ac.uk

3) Restrictedpatients4ormentallydisorderedoffenders,whoarealsosexualorviolent

offendersandfallwithincategories1to3,arealsoincludedunderMAPPA.

Unlike England and Wales, MAPPA in Scotland excludes much of the young offender

populationwhoaremanagedthroughtheChildren’sHearingSystem5;butofcoursethereis

notechnical reasonwhyMAPPAmeetings shouldnot be informallyextendedto consider

childrenandyoungpeopleinrespectofwhomsignificantconcernexists.

Thethreelevelsofmanagementare:

• Level1:therisksposedbytheoffenderaresuchthattheycouldbecompetently

managed by a single agency without significantly involving other agencies. The

majorityofMAPPAcasesfallintothislevel

• Level2:Inter-agencyriskmanagement.Thislevelofriskorcomplexityofthecaseis

effectivelymanagedbyactiveinvolvementofmorethanoneagency

• Level3:Multi-AgencyPublicProtectionPanels(orMAPPPs).Thecriteriafor these

criticalfewcasespresentashighorveryhighriskandrequirecloseco-operationand

oversightataseniorlevel

WhilstMAPPAwasintroducedinScotlandviatheManagementofOffenders(Scotland)Act

in 2005, the implementation of MAPPA has been phased. In April 2007 registered sex

offenders (RSOs)weremanagedunderMAPPAand inApril 2008 thearrangementswere

extended to include Restricted Patients. The Scottish Government is yet to agree the

operational detail of including violent and other dangerous offenders within theMAPPA

structure.

ComparingMAPPAnumbersinEngland&Wales,&Scotland

Thestatisticsclearly demonstrates thatMAPPA inEnglandandWales isdifferent inboth

scope,intermsofthecategoriesofoffendersmanagedundertheumbrellaofMAPPA,and

in size, in termsof thenumberofoffenders includedunder theMAPPAwhencompared

againsttheScottishstatistics.

Table 1 (below) illustrates the significantly wider scale ofMAPPA in England and Wales

compared to MAPPA in Scotland as at 31st March 2009. It should be noted that since

2008/9,thedataprovidedbyEnglandandWaleshasbeena‘snapshot’figureofthenumber

ofoffendersineachcategoryon31MarchandtheScottishdatahasbeenpresentedinthe

samewaytoenablecomparisons.Whilsttherearesignificantdifferencesinthenumberof

offendersmanagedunderMAPPA,NorthandSouthoftheborder,thenumberofRSO’sper

100,000ofthepopulation,arebroadlysimilar.

4‘RestrictedPatients’referstothosepersonsdefinedwithinSection10,11(a)-(d)oftheManagementofOffendersetc

(Scotland)Act2005.See:http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2005/asp_20050014_en_1#pb3-l1g10 5 Children’s Hearings are lay tribunals headed by tribunal members of the Children’s Panel, often from the local

community,andassuchanappearancebeforetheChildren’sPaneldoesnotresultinconviction.



BriefingNo.01/2010

3

www.sccjr.ac.uk

Table1:NumberofOffendersandRegisteredSexOffendersmanagedunderMAPPAasof

31/3/2009

Sources:NationalStatisticsforMulti-AgencyPublicProtectionArrangementsAnnualReports08/096,the

ScottishMAPPAannualreports7,theScottishpopulationestimate

8

AcursoryglanceatthenumbersofthenumbersofRSO’smanagedbylevel(seetable2),

wouldsuggestsomeconceptualandoperational divergencesin termsofwhatconstitutes

the differentMAPPA levels indicated by the significantly higher percentage of offenders

managedatlevel2inScotland.Thepercentagesinthistableareindicativebutcomparable,

asinScotlandtherecordingoflevel2offendersistakenoverawholeyearwhilstinEngland

andWalesthefiguresarereportedasasnapshoton31.3.09only.EnglandandWalesdonot

routinelypublishfiguresforthenumberofoffendersmanagedatleveloneoverthewhole

year. Thus theScottish figureshavebeencalibratedin thesamemanner forcomparative

purposes. Itisdifficult,intheabsenceofmoredetailedresearchtocommentonwhether

this reflects over inflationof risk,and in turn therefore, levelsofmanagement, oractual

differences in risk, or tolerancesof risk, both North andSouth of theborderandindeed

betweensomeoftheCommunityJusticeAuthority(CJA)areaswithinScotland(seetable7).

Asindicatedbytable2,inScotland31.7%ofRSO’sweremanagedatlevel2and2.2%weremanaged at level 3 with a between CJA comparative analysis (see table 7) evidencing

significantvariationsbetweenmanagementlevels,notablyatlevel2,rangingfrom15–38

%,apatternevidentacrossperiods2007-8and2008-9.

Table2:PercentageRegisteredSexOffenderscategorisedaslevels2and3

2008–09 Level2 Level3

England&Wales 13.8%(n=4408) 1.3%(n=424)

Scotland 31.7%(n=941) 2.2%(n=64)

As indicated previously, without additional information, a fuller analysis of the relative

convergencesanddivergencesofthestatisticspresentednorthandsouthoftheborderisnot possible. Similarly, due to significant differences in the reporting criteria

9, direct

6www.justice.gov.uk/news/docs/mappa-figures-2009.pdf

7www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/10/20101349 and

www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/Search/Q/Subject/4798www.gro.scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/population-estimates/mid-2008-population-estimates-

scotland/listoftables9Examplesofdivergencein thereportingcriteriabetweenEnglandandWalesandScotlandarequitesignificant.For

example,English andWelshMAPPAAnnual Reportsdonot routinely publishdataonLevel 1offenders,unlike their

Scottishcounterparts; Scottishreportsseparatelydelineateall statisticspertainingto restrictedpatients,whichis not

pursued inEnglandandWales; English andWelshAnnual Report providedataonthenumberofoffenders intotal

returnedtocustodyforabreachof licence;theScottishreports,byvirtueofthedifferentarrangements,specifyRSO’sandprovidedataonthosereturnedtocustodyandthosenotreturnedtocustody,andextendthecriteriatoincludenot

justlicencebutstatutoryordersingeneral.IntheEnglishandWelshAnnualReports,dataisprovidedonthenumberof

No.ofoffenders No.ofRSO’s No.ofRSO’sper100,000

ofthepopulation

England&Wales 44,761 32,336 61.08

Scotland 3,145 2,967 57.40



BriefingNo.01/2010

5

www.sccjr.ac.uk

EnforcementandCompliance

Intermsofenforcementandcompliance,oftheRSO’smanagedunderMAPPAinScotland

between2008-9,only136RSO’swerereportedforbreachofrequirementtonotify;onthe

31stMarch2009,21RSO’swererecordedaswanted,and12wererecordedasmissing.In

theperiod2008-9,45SOPOswereappliedforbyPoliceforcesinScotland,ofwhich36were

grantedbytheScottishCourts,andafurther9SOPOswereimposedbytheCourtsatthe

point of conviction. Interestingly, 35 of the total number of RSO’s subject to a SOPO in

Scotland(figurenotsupplied)werereportedforbreachofconditions,reflectingasignificant

increasewhencomparedtoreportedstatisticsfromtheprecedingyear.Table12illustrates

thatthemajorityofRSO’s(63.3%)inScotlandarenotsubjecttoastatutoryorder14.Ofthe

36.7 % (n=1103) of RSO’s subject to statutory orders, 143 RSO’s (13%) are recorded as

havingbreachedtheirstatutoryorder,amongstwhom,46% (n=66)werenotreturnedto

custody(seetable7).

FurtherSeriousViolentandSexualConvictions

ThenumberofrecordedfurtherseriousviolentorsexualconvictionsbyRSO’sremainsvery

small buthas increased for all CJAareas from theperiod2007-8 to2008-9.Because the

absolutenumberofSFOsissosmallandbecauseweonlyhavedatafortwoyears,itwould

be inappropriate todrawanyinferencesabouttrendsfrom these figures. Thenumberof

RSO’sreturnedtocustodyforabreachofstatutoryorderhasremainedrelativelyconstant.

ThenumberofRSO’sreturnedtocustodyforabreachofSOPOhasalmostdoubled,despite

therelativelycomparablenumbersofSOPO’simposedbytheCourts,followingapplication

bythePolice,perannum.Whilstthenumberofformaldisclosures15haveoverallincreased,

most notably this has occurred primarily in Lothian and Borders CJA, who, alongside

Northern CJA a comparatively much higher incidence of use than the other CJA areas .

Whilstthisisonlyonemethodofdisclosure16,thesestatisticshighlighttheselectiveuseof

formaldisclosureinScotland.

RestrictedPatients

Thereare farfewerrestrictedpatients(RPs) subjecttoMAPPAthanRSO’s,witha totalof

178RP’slivinginScotlandon31stMarch2009(table8).OfthetotalnumberofRP’ssubject

14WhilstthispatternmaintainsformostCJAareas,inFifeandForthValleyCJA(andparticularlyForthValley)thetrendis

reversed,with71%ofRSO’sbeingsubjecttostatutoryorderscomparedwith29%subjecttonotificationrequirements.

Similarly,inNorthStrathclydeCJAthenumberssubjecttostatutoryordersarebroadlyequivalenttothenumberssubject

tonotificationrequirements(Seetable12).15 FormalDisclosure- ifa decisionismadeto formallydisclose,then aletterofdisclosurewillbe draftedon

behalfoftheDeputyorAssistantChiefConstableoftherelevantPoliceForce.Thislettershouldbeservedbythe

policepersonallyonthepersontowhomthedisclosureistobemade.Thedisclosureshouldbelimitedtothe

informationnecessarytominimisetherisk.Officersservingthislettershouldensurethattheydonotdisclose

anyfurtherinformationotherthanwhatisstipulatedintheletter.Althoughnofurtherinformationshouldbe

disclosed, advice and guidanceon how the individual should respond tothe informationin orderto protect

themselvesorothersandinparticularwhetheranyfurtheraction.Thisprocedurewillonlybeadvancedasalast

resortandwillbecompletedinconsultationwithpartneragencies.Therearevariousotherformsofdisclosure

discussedinthebodyofthisdocument.16ScottishLocalAuthoritiesalsohavepowerstodiscloseinformationtothirdpartieswhenchildprotectionissueshave

beenidentified, under childprotectionprotocols. Registeredsexoffendersareoftenencouragedto self-disclose,forexampletoanewpartneroremployer.SelfdisclosuremaytakeplaceinthepresenceofaPoliceOfficeroraCriminal

JusticeSocialWorker,butinallinstances,thedetailsandaccuracyofthedisclosureisconfirmedandcorroborated.



BriefingNo.01/2010

6

www.sccjr.ac.uk

toMAPPS,nilweremanagedatlevel3,26.4%ofRP’sweremanagedatlevel2and73.6%of

RP’sweremanagedatlevel2.ThelowerpercentagesofRP’smanagedatlevel2and3,

whencomparedtothenumberofRSO’smanagedatthesamelevelsare,atleastinpart,a

reflection of the significantly reduced number of RP’s (n=48) resident in Scottish

communities, when contrasted with the number of RSO’s (n-2967) resident in the

community.Relatedly,RSO’sarereferredtoMAPPAonthebasisoftheriskofseriousharm

theyposeandtheassociatedcomplexityofmulti-agencyriskmanagementtheyrequire.For

RP’s,however,therearedifferentcriteria,inthisregard,forthereferralofRP’stoMAPPA17.

RP’saresubjecttotheCareProgrammeApproach(CPA)18andingeneral,whereaneedis

identified throughtheCPA, for a changetoaRP’s treatment andriskmanagementplan,

thenareferraltoMAPPAisrequired,followingwhich,aMAPPAmeetingwillbeheld,forthe

purposes of ratifying, or otherwise, the relevant recommendations for change identified

throughtheCPA from a risk focussedperspective,asopposedto thetreatmentoriented

approachcharacteristicoftheCPA.Ineffect,therefore,oncethisprocessiscompleted,the

RPwillnormallybereducedtolevelonemanagementunderMAPPA.Thiseffectivelymeans

that the duration for whichRP’s aremanaged at level 2 is significantly briefer than the

durationforwhichRSO’saremanagedatlevel2.

AgeandEthnicity

Theinformationpresentedintable9indicatesthatthemajorityofRegisteredSexOffenders

inScotlandareagedbetween22–71years.Thisbroadagerangewouldsuggestthat,inso

far as MAPPA registration reflects offending behaviour, the aggregate age-crime curve

(WeaverandMcNeill,2007 19)doesnotapplytosexualoffending.Itshouldbenotedthat

these figures reflectthe agerangeofRSO‘s ‘currently’subject toMAPPA andnot ageat

whichoffencewascommitted.

The information presented in table 11 indicates that the majority of Registered Sex

OffenderswithinScotland areWhite andofU.KOrigin. This ratioofethnicity (94.5% of

total) is broadly consistentwith the analysis of the Scottish population by ethnic group

(95.4%) (2001 Census (White Scottish & White British % population figures combined)).

WhiletheethnicportraitofRSO’smanagedunderMAPPAinScotlandreflectsthenational

profileofthepopulationbyethnicityingeneral,theagerangeofRSO’ssubjecttoMAPPAis

wider than the age range of the ‘general offending population’, as indicated by the

aggregateage-crimecurve(WeaverandMcNeill,2007 20).Thus,theaverageRSOmanagedunderMAPPAinScotlandiswhite,maleandagedbetween22-71yearsofage.Takenasa

17Onthis,seeMAPPAGuidance(Scotland)Version4:www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/18144823

18TheCareProgrammeApproachisaprocessfororganisingthemulti-disciplinarycareandtreatmentofpatientswith

mentalhealthproblems.Regularreviewmeetingsareheldwhereneedsareidentifiedandplansputinplacetomeet

theseneeds.Riskassessment andriskmanagement areanintegralpartofthisprocess.19Weaver,B.andMcNeill,F.(2007)‘GivingUpCrime:DirectionsforPolicy’TheScottishConsortiumforCrime

andCriminalJustice .Publishedonlineat:

http://scccj.org.uk/documents/SCCCJ%20giving%20up%20crime%20content.pdf 20Weaver,B.andMcNeill,F.(2007)‘GivingUpCrime:DirectionsforPolicy’TheScottishConsortiumforCrime

andCriminalJustice .Publishedonlineat:http://scccj.org.uk/documents/SCCCJ%20giving%20up%20crime%20content.pdf



BriefingNo.01/2010

7

www.sccjr.ac.uk

whole,thenumberofRSO’sconvictedofanotifiableoffenceagainstavictimovertheageof

16(48.2%)islowerthanthenumbersofRSO’sconvictedofanotifableoffenceagainsta

victimundertheageof16(57.2%),and,withtheexceptionofNorthStrathclydeCJA,this

trend isbroadlyconsistentacrossthe CJAareas.North StrathclydeCJA area,by contrast,

reverses this trend,with10.8%ofRSO’s convictedofanotifableoffenceagainsta victim

undertheageof16,comparedwith89.5%ofRSO’sconvictedofanotifableoffenceagainst

avictimovertheageof16(seetable13).

VariationsthroughoutScotland

Beyondthenationalstatisticalportrait,thereareanumberofinterestingvariationswithin

Scotland,betweenCJAareas.LothianandBordersCJAareaforexamplemanagethehighest

numberofRSO’s,whensetagainstotherCJAareas,andindeedthisfigurepertainsforboth

reportingperiods2007-8and2008-9(seetables3&7).Bycontrasts,NorthStrathclydeCJA

managesthefewestRSO’sand,indeed,hasfewerRSO’sper100,00ofthepopulationofthe

area.

Thereisawidevariationbetweensomegeographicareasinrelationtothelevelsatwhich

offendersaremanagedrangingfrom15%ofregisteredsexoffendersmanagedatlevel2in

SouthWestScotlandCommunityJusticeAuthority(CJA)to38%ofregisteredsexoffenders

managedatlevel2inFifeandForthCJAinthereportingperiod2008-9(table7).Asimilar

patternwasevidentin2007-8withvariationsfrom19%ofRSO’smanagedatlevel2inSouth

WestScotlandCJAto38%ofRSO’smanagedatlevel2inNorthernCJA.Constructively,there

iswidespread support for thedevelopmentofa consistentapproach acrossScotland; an

aspiration that is particularly challenging given the absence of a centrally coordinated

national probation service and some evidence of disparate practices in different areas,

particularly in relation to assignation of risk thresholds and associated levels of

management.Thismay beattributable, atleastin part,to adegreeof defensivedecision

making due to the difficulties that the responsible authorities and duty to cooperate

agenciesencounterinattemptingtoassessriskofseriousharm,andindeedimminence,in

theabsenceofavalidatedtoolforsuchpurposes.Thismaylead,insomecasestoanover-

inflationof levelsof risk,andin turn levelsofmanagement– butmoredetailedresearch

wouldberequiredtoascertainwhetherthedifferencesinMAPPAmanagementrelatedto

‘actual’differencesinrisklevels,ordifferent‘tolerances’ofriskindifferentareas.

Aspreviously indicated,thenumberofSOPOsapplied forbyPolice forcesacrossScotland

havebeenhalved,withsignificantreductionsinthenumberofapplicationsbeingrecorded

particularlybyNorthernCJAandtoalesserextentFifeandForthValleyCJA.Thatsaid,the

overallnumberoffullSOPOsgrantedby theCourtshavebeen fairlyconsistent.However,

the proportionate use of SOPOs is very different in different CJAs; one might expect a

greaternumbertobeappliedforinthoseareasmanagingahighernumberofRSO’sand

indeedwhilethisdoespertainforLothianandBordersCJA,FifeandForthValleyCJAand

Northern CJA, there are substantially fewer SOPO’sapplied for inGlasgow CJA, where a

similar number of RSO’s are managed, in an exceedingly more densely populated and

restricted geographical area. The levels of compliancewith notification requirements are

broadlyconsistentbetweenCJAareas(seetable3),witharangeof8–27RSO’srecordedasnon-compliant (4.8% in total).Whilst the figures are comparatively low, whencompared



BriefingNo.01/2010

8

www.sccjr.ac.uk

withthefiguresrecordedintheperiod2007-8,whichindicatearangeofbetween10–52

RSO’srecordedasnon-compliant(5.8%intotal),thissuggestsamarginalincreaseinoverall

compliancebyRSO’swithnotificationrequirementsinthepastyear.Whilst,bycontrast,the

numbers of wanted and missing RSO’s have increased in the past year, the overall

distributionofwantedandmissingRSO’sacrosstheCJAareasislargelyconsistentwiththe

precedingyear.

ThenumberofrecordedfurtherseriousviolentorsexualconvictionsbyRSO’sremainsvery

small buthas increased for all CJAareas from theperiod2007-8 to2008-9.Because the

absolutenumberofSFOsissosmallandbecauseweonlyhavedatafortwoyears,itwould

beinappropriatetodrawanyinferencesabouttrendsfromthesefigures.Continuingwith

thethemeofenforcementandcompliance,thenumberofRSO’sincarceratedforabreach

oftheirstatutoryordershasremainedfairlyconstantacrossScotland,andwithinCJAarea

andacrossthetwoannualreportingperiods,althoughtherehasbeenamarkedincreasein

the number of RSO’s returned to custodyfor a breach of SOPO inthe last year, 2008-9,

despitetheconsistencyinthenumbersofnewSOPO’simposedeachyear.

ConclusionThis briefing paper collates for the first time, the MAPPA statistics, as delineated in the

individualMAPPAAnnualReportsinScotland,and,takingintoaccounttheextensiontothe

statisticsbeingreportedonfrom2007-8to2008-9,provides,wherepossible,comparative

figuresbetween both reporting years.Whilst, as previously explained, thedifferences inreportingcriteriaNorth andSouthofthe borderpreclude awider comparative view, this

reporthasattemptedtoprovidesomeindicationofthedifferencesinoperation,scopeand

sizeofMAPPAinEnglandandWales,whencomparedagainstMAPPAinScotland.



BriefingNo.01/2010

9

www.sccjr.ac.uk

APPENDIX:MAPPADATA

Table1:NumberofOffendersandRegisteredSexOffendersmanagedunderMAPPAasof

31/3/2009

Table2:PercentageRegisteredSexOffenderscategorisedaslevels2and32008–09 Level2 Level3

England&Wales 13.8%(n=4408) 1.3%(n=424)

Scotland 31.7%(n=941) 2.2%(n=64)

Table 3: Number of Registered Sex Offenders living in the community in Scotland on

31.03.09byCommunityJusticeAuthorityAreas(CJAs)*

*SWS:SouthWestScotlandCJA;LAN:LanarkshireCJA;TAY:TaysideCJA;NG:NorthernGrampian;NH:Northern

HighlandsL&B:LothianandBordersCJA;NS:NorthStrathclydeCJA;GLA:GlasgowCJA;F&F:FifeandForthValley

CJA;SCOT:Scotland(theseabbreviationsapplytoalltables.

Table4:NumberofRegisteredSexOffenderscomplyingwithnotificationrequirementson

31.03.09byCommunityJusticeAuthorityAreas(CJAs)

21Wanted-AnRSOshouldbeconsideredaswantedinthefollowingcircumstances;whereitisknownthatan

offenderisactivelyavoidingpoliceinresponsetopoliceenquiriestotracethatindividualrelativetooffences

theymayhavecommittedorinrelationtoothermattersforwhichitisrequiredthattheybeinterviewed.This

mayincludethoseoccasionswhereanoffenderisthesubjectofanarrestwarrant.

22

Missing- aSexOffendershouldbeconsideredasMissingin thefollowingcircumstances;Wherethecurrentwhereabouts of an offender is unknown and Police enquiries to establish their whereabouts have been

unsuccessful.Asaresultoftheseactionstheriskmanagementprocessmaynotbeachievableandthereexistsa

No.ofoffenders No.ofRSO’s No.ofRSO’sper100,000

ofthepopulation

England&Wales 44,761 32,336 61.08

Scotland 3,145 2,967 57.40

SWS LAN TAY NG NH L&B NS GLA F FV SCOT

i)Atlibertyand

livinginthe

community

311

(355)

307

(294)

298

(275

)

272

(330

)

167

(213)

544

(596)

221

(207)

434

(430)

247

(229

)

166

(202)

2967

(3131)

ii)Per100,000ofthe

population

60

(68)

48

(47)

74

(68)

61

(66)

58.5

(71)

58.4

(65)

36

(33)

75

(74)

78

(80)

73

(70)

57.4

(60.5)

SWS LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

Compliedwith

notification

requirements

290

(338)

292

(282)

287

(267)

420

(507)

517

(606)

204

(198)

410

(456)

405

(409)

2825

(3063)

Reportedforbreaches

oftherequirementstonotify

21

(17)

15

(12)

11

(10)

17

(52)

27

(31)

17

(16)

20

(23)

8

(22)

136

(183)

Thenumberof

“wanted”RSOs21

3

(0)

1

(0)

5

(7)

2

(1)

6

(5)

0

(1)

3

(1)

1

(3)

21

(18)

Thenumberof

“missing”RSOs22

0

(0)

0

(1)

1

(1)

1

(0)

7

(2)

0

(0)

1

(3)

2

(0)

12

(7)



BriefingNo.01/2010

10

www.sccjr.ac.uk

Table5: Number ofCivilOrders relatingto Registered SexOffenders applied forby the

policein2008/09byCommunityJusticeAuthorityAreas(CJAs) SWS LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

SexualOffences

PreventionOrders

(SOPOs)

2

(4)

2

(0)

4

(5)

11

(46)

12

(15)

1

(1)

4

(2)

9

(19)

45

(92)

RiskofSexualHarm

Orders(RSHOs)

1

(1)

0

(0)

0

(0)

1

(3)

1

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

1

(1)

4

(5)

InterimSOPO’s

3

(1)

0

(0)

N/A

(5)

5

(22)

N/A

(7)

0

(0)

3

(0)

8

(8)

19

(43)

InterimRSHO’s23 1

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

2

(2)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

1

(0)

4

(2)

FullRSHO’s

1(0)

0(0)

0(0)

0(1)

- 0(0)

00)

0(0)

1(1)

ForeignTravelOrders

(FTO’s)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NotificationOrders

(NO’s)

0 0 0 0 3 2 3 1 9

Table6:NumberofCivilOrdersrelatingtoRegisteredSexOffendersgrantedbythecourts

in2008/09byCommunityJusticeAuthorityAreas(CJAs) SWS LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

SexualOffences

PreventionOrders

(SOPO’S)

1

(2)

1

(0)

4

(5)

11

(17)

12

(5)

1

(1)

*

(2)

6

(-)

36

(32)

RiskofSexualHarm

Orders(RSHO’s)

1

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

1(1) 1

(0)

0

(0)

*

0

(0)

3

(1)

SOPO’Simposedby

courtsattimeof

conviction:

0 0 1 3 1 0 *

4 9

InterimSOPO’s 3 0 0 5 0 0 *

4 12

InterimRSHO’s 1 0 0 2 0 0

*

0 3

FullRSHO’s 1 0 0 0 - 0 *

0 1

ForeignTravelOrders

(FTO’s)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

*

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

NotificationOrders(NO’s)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

3(0)

2(0)

*

1(0)

6(0)

*Datanotpresentedinannualreport

requirementtotracetheindividualandaddresstheriskhe/shemayposeandestablishiffurtheroffenceshave

beencommitted. Thoseoffenderswhohave leftthe territorial jurisdictionof theUnitedKingdomandwhose

locationabroadisknownarenotconsideredasmissing.Therequirementtocomplywiththeregistrationprocess

is suspended whilst offenders are out with the UK. Where appropriate, consideration should be given to

establishingwhethertheoffenderhascommittedanoffencerelativetonotificationofhis/herforeigntravel.In

this situation if an arrest warrant is issued relative to such an offence the offender should be regarded as

Wanted.23

Risk of SexualHarm Order (RSHO) - place restrictions on someonewho is behaving in such a way whichsuggeststhattheyposeariskofsexualharmtoaparticularchildortochildrengenerally.Theperson'sbehaviour

neednotconstituteacriminaloffence,ands/heneednothaveanypreviousconvictions.



BriefingNo.01/2010

11

www.sccjr.ac.uk

Table 7: Number of Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs) in 2008/09 by Community Justice

AuthorityAreas(CJAs) SWS LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

a)RSOsbyMAPPA

Category*:

i)Level1–Ordinary

RiskManagement

372

(277)

234

(201)

221

(202)

353

(349)

529

(431)

162

(170)

471

(402)

290

(298)

2632

(2330)

ii)Level2–Local

Inter-agencyRisk

Management

68

(68)

112

(69)

68

(72)

126

(226)

175

(198)

94

(85)

111

(74)

187

(131)

941

(923)

iii)Level3–MAPPP 7

(10)

6

(5)

9

(1)

13

(10)

6

(8)

7

(13)

7

(3)

9

(6)

64

(56)

b)RSOsconvictedof

afurthercrimeof

sexualharmornon

sexualviolence:*

i) MAPPALevel1 1 0 0 2 4 1 5 0 13

ii) MAPPALevel2 1 2 4 3 10 5 0 1 26

iii) MAPPPLevel3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 5

c)RSO’sreturnedto

custodyforabreach

ofstatutory

conditions**

10

(6)

6

(5)

7

(7)

10

(11)

12

(18)

11

(5)

18

(10)

3

(1)

77

(63)

d)RSO’sreturnedto

custodyforabreach

ofSOPO

2

(1)

0

(0)

4

(2)

14

(9)

8

(3)

0

(0)

3

(1)

4

(2)

35

(18)

e)RSO’sreturnedtocustodyforabreach

ofFTO

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

f)RSO’sreturnedto

custodyforabreach

ofRSHO

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

g)RSOswho

breachedstatutory

conditionsbutwere

notreturnedto

custody

8 1 4 16 30 6 - 1 66

h)RSOssubjectto

formaldisclosure

1

(1)

0

(1)

0

(0)

9

(7)

10

(1)

0

(0)

0

(0)

2

(2)

22

(12)

*Thesestatisticsrepresentafullyearanditshouldbenotedthatoffendersmovebetweenlevelsofmanagementdependingonidentifiedrisk,whichcanchangewithchangingcircumstances.Veryfewoffendersremainatlevel

threeforlongperiodsasthemanagementofriskisusuallyagreedandsettlestoallowthepersontobemanaged

atlevel2orlevel1.Thelevel1figureincludesalloffenderswhohavebeennotifiedtotheMAPPACoordinatorby

theResponsibleAuthoritiesandwhohavenotbeenmanagedateitherlevel2or3betweentheperiods1stApril

and31March.Thelevel2figureincludesthoseoffenderswhohavenotbeenmanagedatlevel3atanypoint

between1stApriland31stMarch.

**includesthosereturnedtocustodybecauseofaconvictionoffurtherserioussexualorviolentoffence



BriefingNo.01/2010

12

www.sccjr.ac.uk

Table 8:Number of Restricted Patients (RPs) in 2008/09by Community Justice Authority

Areas(CJAs) SWS LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

a)NumberofRPs:

i)Livinginyourarea 13 35 19 16 30 2 51 12 178

ii)Duringthereportingyear 25 36 20 16 40 2 51 14 204

b)NumberofRPsperorder:

i)CompulsionOrderand

RestrictionOrder(CORO)

24 11 27 14 34 3 44 11 168

ii)HospitalDirection(HD) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

iii)TransferforTreatment

Direction(TTD)

1 2 0 2 6 0 4*

+(3)

3 21

c)Numberwithinhospital/community:i)StateHospital 9 18 8 3 8 1 36 7 90

ii)Otherhospitalno

suspensionofdetention

(SUS)

5 8 1 6 16 0 22 8 66

iii)Otherhospitalwith

unescortedSUS

4 1 0 4 19 1 10 6 45

iv)Community

(Conditional

Discharge)

7 8 8 5 5 1 14 0 48

d)RPsmanagedby:

MAPPALevel1 19 30 15 10 29 1 69 8 181

MAPPALevel2 6 6 13 5 11 1 19 4 65

MAPPPLevel3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0e)RPsconvictedofafurthercrimeofsexualharmornonsexualviolence:

i)MAPPALevel1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ii)MAPPALevel2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

iii)MAPPP3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

f)NoofRPsonsuspensionofdetention:

i)whodidnotabscondor

offend

4 1 2 7 33 1 0 2 50

ii)whoabsconded 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 4

iii)whoabscondedand

then

offended

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

iv)whereabsconsion

resultedinwithdrawalofsuspensionofdetention

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

g)No.ofRPsonConditionalDischarge:

i)whodidnotbreach

conditions,notrecalledor

didnotoffend

7 4 8 7 5 1 13 0 45

ii)whobreached

conditions

(resultinginletterfromthe

ScottishGovernment)

0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

iii)recalledbyScottish

Ministersduetobreaching

conditions

0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

iv)recalledbyScottishMinistersforotherreasons 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

*+3InterimCompulsionOrder:Glasgow



BriefingNo.01/2010

13

www.sccjr.ac.uk

Table9: AgeProfileof Registered SexOffenders (RSOs) in2008/09byCommunityJustice

AuthorityAreas(CJAs)(Numbersinbrackets) SWS LAN TAY N** L&B NS GLA F&F** SCOT

North

ern

Gram

pian

Fife Forth

2

Under

18

1.3%

(5)

1%

(3)

1%

(3)

1%

(2)

1.8%

(6)

0.4%

(2)

0.9%

(2)

0.7%

(3)

1.5%

(3)

0.5%

(1)

0.9%

(30)

18-21 6.4%

(25)

5%

(17)

3%

(9)

7%

(13)

7.9%

(26)

2.9%

(16)

1.8%

(4)

4.4%

(19)

4%

(10)

8.1%

(17)

4.9%

(156)

22-31 (70)

18%

22%

(64)

18%

(54)

23%

(45)

22.6%

(74)

14.7%

(80)

23.5%

(52)

13.3%

(58)

11%

(28)

21.9%

(46)

17.9%

(571)

32-41 19.7%

(77)

19%

(60)

19%

(56)

15%

(29)

12.8%

(42)

21.9%

(119)

18.5%

(41)

20%

(87)

25%

(61)

19.5%

(41)

19.3%

(613)

42-51 19.4%

(76)

23%

(72)

24%

(73)

19%

(38)

23.5%

(77)

29%

(158)

24.4%

(54)

25.8%

(112)

29%

(72)

20%

(42)

24.3%

(774)

52-61 19.9%

(78)

17%

(51)

19%

(57)

17%

(35)

18%

(59)

15.5%

(84)

12.6%

(28)

(78)

18%

18%

(45)

16.7%

(35)

17.3%

(550)

62-71 11.5%

(45)

8%

(26)

10%

(29)

14%

(27)

10.1%

(33)

11%

(60)

12.2%

(27)

17.7%

(77)

*60+

10%

(25)

18.6%

(18)

15.1%

(482*)

72-81 3.3%

(13)

4%

(13)

6%

(17)

4%

(8)

3%

(10)

4.2%

(23)

4.9%

(11)

- 1.5%

(3)

4.3%

(9)

82-91 0.5%

(2)

1%

(1)

0 0 0 0.4%

(2)

0.9%

(2)

- 0 0.5%

(1)

*AsGlasgowhaveonlyprovidedstatisticsforthoseoveraged60,theotherCJAfigureshavebeenaggregated

hereforcomparativepurposes.

**NotethatFifeandForthandNorthernandGrampianprovideseparatestatistics.

***Thesestats,byarea,donotconsistentlyreflectthenumbersofRSO’sresidentinthecommunityon31.03.09;

rather, for some areas, they reflect the total number, and thus age profile, of thoseRSO’smanaged under

MAPPA,byCJAon31.03.09.Thesefiguresmayincludethoseincustody.Thus,thesestatisticsareindicativeonly.

Scottishtotal=3176.ThuspercentilesofScottishfigurearecomputedagainstthistotal.

Table10:PercentageofRegisteredSexOffendersbygender,byCommunityJusticeAuthority(CJA)(Numbersinbrackets) SWS LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

North

ern

Gram

pian

Fife Forth

2

Male 99.5%

(389)

99%

(304)

99.66%

(297)

100%

(197)

97.5%

(319)

99.6%

(542)

99.55%

(220)

99.5%

(432)

99.2%

(243)

99%

(208)

99.2%

(3151)

Female 0.5%

(2)

1%

(3)

0.33%

(1)

0 2.5%

(8)

0.4%

(2)

0.45%

(1)

0.5%

(2)

0.8%

(3)

1%

(2)

0.8%

(24)



BriefingNo.01/2010

14

www.sccjr.ac.uk

Table11:EthnicOriginsofRegisteredSexOffendersbyCommunityJusticeAuthority(CJA)

(Numbersinbrackets) SWS LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

Nort

hern

Gram

pian

Fife Forth

2

Asianor

AsianBritish

Anyother

Asian

0 0 0.33%

(1)

0 0 0.74%

(4)

1.35

%

(3)

1.6%

(7)

2%

(5)

0.95%

(2)

0.69%

(22)

Asianor

AsianBritish

Bangladeshi

0 0 0 1%

(2)

0.61%

(2)

0 0 0.5%

(2)

0.4%

(1)

0 0.22%

(7)

Asianor

AsianBritish

Indian

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9%

(4)

0 0.47%

(1)

0.15%

(5)

Asianor

AsianBritish

Pakistani

0 0.3%

(1)

3%

(9)

0 0.61%

(2)

1.29%

(7)

0 2.5%

11)

0.4%

(1)

0 0.97%

(31)

Blackor

BlackBritish

African

0 0.3%

(1)

0.67%

(2)

0 0 0 0 1.2%

(5)

0 0 0.25%

(8)

Blackor

BlackBritish

AnyOther

Black

Background

0 0 0.33%

(1)

0 0 0.55%

(3)

0 0 0 0 0.12%

(4)

BlackorBlackBritish

Caribbean

0 0 0 0 1.22%(4)

0 0.45%

(1)

0 0 0 0.15%(5)

Chineseor

OtherEthnic

Group

Chinese

0 0 0 0 0 0.36%

(2)

0 0 0 0 0.06%

(2)

MixedOther

0 0 0 0.5

%

(1)

0.3%

(1)

0.92%

(5)

0 0 0 0 0.22%

(7)

MixedWhite

andAsian

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MixedWhite

andBlackAfrican

0 0 0.67%

(2)

0 0 0.36%

(2)

0 0 0 0 0.12%

(4)

MixedWhite

andBlack

Caribbean

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NotKnown

0 0 0 0 0 0.92%

(5)

0 0.2%

(1)

0 0.95%

(2)

0.25%

(8)

WhiteBritish 97.6%

(382)

99%

(304)

93%

(279)

97%

(191)

92%

(300)

91.54

%

(498)

217)

98.1

%

91%

(395)

96%

(237)

96%

(201)

94.5%

(3004)

WhiteIrish 1.6%

(6)

0.3%

(1)

0 0 0 0.74%

(4)

0 0.7%

(3)

0.4%

(1)

0 0.47%

(15)

WhiteOther 0.8%

(3)

0 1.3%

(4)

1.5%

(3)

5.5%

(18)

2.58%

(14)

0 1.4%

6)

0.8%

(2)

1.9%

(4)

1.7%

(54)



BriefingNo.01/2010

15

www.sccjr.ac.uk

Table12:NumberofRSO’smanagedunderstatutoryconditionsand/ornotification

requirementson31stMarch2009,byCommunityJusticeAuthority(CJA) SWS LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

North

ern

Gram

pian

Fife Forth

2

ubjectto

tatutory

upervision

34%

(106)

25%

(76)

32%

(96)

34%

(57)

51%

(139)

30%

(163)

50.6%

(112)

25%

(107)

39%

(98)

71%

(149)

36.7%

(1103)

ubjectto

notification

requirements

nly

66%

(205)

75%

(231)

68%

(202)

66%

(110)

49%

(133)

70%

(381)

49.4%

109)

75%

(327)

61%

(145)

29%

(61)

63.3%

(1904)

Table13:DelineationofRegisteredSexOffendervictims*: SWS* LAN TAY N L&B NS GLA F&F SCOT

North

ern

Gram

pian

Fife Forth

2

Convictedofa

notifiable

offenceagainst

achild

under16years

63%

(261)

49%

(152)

65%

(196)

73%

(144)

74%

(242)

36.4%

(198)

10.8%

(24)

42%

(181)

- 74.5%

(157)

57.2%

(1555)

Convictedofa

notifiable

offenceagainstavictimover16

years

33.5%

(139)

51%

(155)

35%

(102)

27%

(53)

26%

(85)

20.4%

(111)

89.5%

198)

58%

253)

- 29%

(61)

42.8%

(1157)

*DiscrepanciesinnumbersrepresentedreflectthattheageofthevictimisneitherrecordedonViSORnor

suppliedinMAPPAnotificationpaperwork.

briefing paper 2010_01 mappa(1)-2

Documents